Illinois appellate court affirms judgment for hostaged load victimBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, April 2017Bullet Express, Inc. v. New Way Logistics, Inc. promises to be a useful precedent on which victims in future hostage load situations will be able to rely upon in pursuit of any wrongdoing entity(ies) if forced to pursue litigation.

IDOT long-range state transportation planBy Jeffrey A. MolletAgricultural Law, May 2012On April 30, 2012, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) announced plans to update its Long-Range State Transportation Plan (Plan), all as required by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration.

District court refuses to reconsider Carmack preemption of cargo claimBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, November 2011In Personal Communications Devices v. Platinum Cargo Logistics, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of a partial grant of summary judgment in cargo claim litigation.

Seventh Circuit vacates FMCSA EOBR ruleBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, October 2011With this court ruling, it is anticipated FMCSA may need to restart the entire mandatory EOBR rulemaking process and rewrite the rule or issue some supplemental ruling that addressed the harassment issue and other issues that have been raised in evaluating the new rule.

New Jersey District Court rejects material deviation claimBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, September 2011The court noted that PMT needed to show UPS’ intentional destruction or theft of the cargo for the liability limit to be ignored and no such evidence had been presented.

Res ipsa and wandering cowsBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, September 2011Under the res ipsa theory, the facts at issue must be so egregious that the only way the crash in issue could have occurred would be if someone had been negligent.

Motor carrier defeats HIV-positive driver’s ADA and related claimsBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, June 2011The case of EEOC v. C.R. England, Inc. will be helpful to motor carriers and others as it answers some fundamental questions that arise from the ADA statute which have not been previously addressed in detail by the courts.

Southern District Of California finds home delivery drivers to be independent contractors, not employeesBy William D. BrejchaEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, June 2011The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California analyzed each of the ten "common law factors" relating to the drivers’ employment/contractor status, ultimately concluding that plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient to overcome the Georgia law presumption of independent contractor status for the plaintiff drivers.

Material deviation: A fallacious argument against limitations of motor carrier liabilityBy Craig J. Helmreich and Nathaniel G. SaylorEnergy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and Transportation, April 2011Motor carriers and their counsel should consider contract provisions closely—particularly security provisions—and analyze the potential for exposure to claims of material deviation that could be used to avoid bargained for limitations of carrier liability.